Posted: May 12, 2011 in City of Riverside
Tags: , , , , , ,

Tuesday’s City Council meeting ended with Riverside City Council passing permit parking within the vicinity of the park entrance way of Mt. Rubidoux.  Councilman Mike Gardner listened to the opinions of community residents, then himself speaking of the pros and cons, then passing permit parking with a review in  6 months.  Whats the solution, sometimes you have to pave a little bit of paradise and just build a parking lot.  There is no doubt that  Mt. Rubidoux will continue to be a destination point for many who live outside of the Riverside vincinity, but it is also our gem to the  community.  A parking lot would be the only solution, instead of having visitors park further away from the entrance.  But another hidden issue regards to the passing of restricted parking is the increase in Latino people who have been utilizing the park withing the last two years.  To some residents this has been the real issue, and to others within that community, it has eluded to the issue and tone of racism, which has allegedly been relayed to Councilman Mike Gardner.   But I digress, ever read city parking signs?  You read them, but still somehow get a ticket because you missed something.  My solution, is taking the properties as shown from 9th Sreet to 10th Street by eminent domain or by purchasing, would allow the city to acquire the land to give to the community and its visitors a place to park so they can enjoy the park, and not scaring them away and making people angry with ridiculous tickets.  We saw this phenomenon with the installation of parking meters into the downtown Riverside area in early 2000 by then Councilman Dom Betro, and currently merchants in Ventura, CA who are also experiencing lower customer visits with newly installed city parking meters.

UPDATE: 06/19/2011: Sunday:

We all pay for the streets, yet only SOME people are allowed to park on them.  That’s just totally asinine!      -Daves Not Here, comment from the PE

MT. RUBIDOUX- The parking conundrum has always been a firey issue.  Public parking already paid for by taxpayers, taken back by government for the benefit of a few?  Or does the city need the parking fine money to pay for the mounting debt that will come due, July 1, 2012.  Therefore the question is, do we hit residents and visitors with $41.00 tickets?  Further, why would one move to the country and complain about the roosters?  The parking issue continues all over the city,  but now the city is nickeling and diming visitors, not to mention residents, with parking tickets and code enforcement violations.  For example,  the issue in the Woodstreets regarding street cleaning signs, and residents being hit with $41 dollar tickets.  Now , if you pay for a landscaper by the month, and you tell him not to show, he still gets paid, but he doesn’t penalize you for not utilizing him.  Well the city does.  As taxpayers we pay for street cleaning, if we decide to park our car in front of home, shouldn’t we not get ticketed for using that service that day?  People maintain the front curb in front of the sidewalk without thinking that the city owns it, should we in turn send part of landscaping bill to the city to be reimbursed for  maintaining it?  Or after a windy day, should we charge the city for not picking up the broken tree and palm branches left on the street?  Left for the Residents to do the job themselves?  These are issues Councilman Mike Gardner will have to deal with appropriately in his new term.  Of course one of the suggestions regarding the Mt. Rubidoux parking was to take the properties closest to the entry way to the main entrance, this may not be a very popular suggestion, but in the long term would provide a solution to the parking problem we experience.  As Mt. Rubidoux continues to be drawing attraction when people visit our city, this would allow them a good experience.

  1. Jason says:

    Okay I wasn’t going to comment on this one, but I can’t help myself apparently…

    “My solution, is taking the properties as shown from 9th Sreet to 10th Street by eminent domain or by purchasing which would allow the city to acquire the land to give the community and its visitors a place to park so they can enjoy the park, and not scarring them away and making people angry with ridiculous tickets.”

    Yeah okay, your telling me that if the city was to follow through with your “solution” that you wouldn’t then create another article titled “OMG! The City Corruptively Kicks More Families Out of Their Homes Through Eminent Domain!” …No? I know the douches at Save Riverside would, so it sounds like the city council will have critics on both ends then. This is probably the safest route for the time being. You’ll get your parking lot though when the Tequesquito Arroyo Park is completed.

  2. Dan says:

    I agree with the respondent that stated we all pay for the streets, we should all be allowed to park on them. Those residents bought those houses knowing that Mt. Rubidoux was there. It is unfair. I am actually angry over this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s